The Front Page Cover
2016 The truth will set you free
Featuring:
Anti-slump-Trump Conservatives Might Need to
Swallow Pride, Support Cruz
Jonah Goldberg
~~~
.
Who Politicized the Courts?
The raging controversy over filling the Supreme Court vacancy of Justice Antonin Scalia, whose tragic death unleashed a political firestorm over whether Barack nObama should nominate his successor, or whether the next president should make the nomination, must be looked at in perspective. It's a true waste of time giving more than a bemused passing notice to the ranting of Democrats, who accuse the Republican-led Congress of all manner of wrongdoing in opposing a nomination by nObama, all the while hypocritically ignoring their own precedent-setting actions over the last 20-30 years, when they wrote the book on how to oppose Supreme Court nominations. This process is and has long been a political exercise.
And at least one high-ranking judge proclaims that the High Court itself is politicized. Judge Richard A. Posner of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, and a senior lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School, explains this in a commentary published by The Washington Post. He wrote, "[T]he significance of the Senate's action lies in reminding us that the Supreme Court is not an ordinary court but a political court, or more precisely a politicized court, which is to say a court strongly influenced in making its decisions by the political beliefs of the judges."
We expect Congress to be heavily political, and the president belongs to a political party and is chosen through a political process, so while it would be great if administrative agencies applied regulations and laws in a fair, neutral, non-political manner, bureaucracies are also often used as political tools.
Judges at all levels are expected and presumed to be impartial in applying the law and are sworn to follow the precepts of the U.S. Constitution. They must resist allowing their personal ideals or political leanings to affect the rulings or opinions they produce. The Constitution created three co-equal branches of the government; therefore all branches must employ restraint in order to remain within their constitutional boundaries. Quaint and outdated idea, we know.
Posner excuses the tendency of judges to fall back on their personal and political beliefs because there is no clear instruction from the Constitution in situations the Framers could not have foreseen more than 200 years ago. Justice Scalia, however, had little trouble following the Constitution's language when deciding his position on cases before the Court.
Scalia, you see, was a "conservative" judge — an "originalist." According to the Oxford Dictionaries, "conservative" means: "Holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation." Applied to the federal judiciary, as viewed by believers in strict constructionism and originalism, the term means adhering to the meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights as they were understood by those who wrote those documents at the time they wrote them.
On the other side of the spectrum, judicial liberals assert that the Constitution must be a "living" document, the exact meaning of which changes with the times or depends upon who is interpreting it. Such a view not only allows for "judicial activism," it demands it.
"Judicial activism occurs when judges write subjective policy preferences into the law rather than apply the law impartially according to its original meaning," according to a definition from The Heritage Foundation. "As such, activism does not mean the mere act of striking down a law," it also means making law from the bench.
But the Constitution clearly and unmistakably gives Congress — and only Congress — the authority and responsibility to make law.
Judges should consider what the Framers of the Constitution intended and whether the parameters they set allowed for the size, power or cost of the federal government, given the abuses that produced the Revolution and the deliberate efforts to restrict all of those features. Or, whether they would have allowed the Supreme Court or the executive branch to misappropriate the law making authority of the Congress.
If you still doubt that the Supreme Court has become an activist court, consider this tidbit from Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who told The New York Times that "she was fully engaged in her work as the leader of the liberal opposition on what she called 'one of the most activist courts in history.'"
Making laws from the bench and judicial expansion are not products of judicial conservatives, whose adherence to original intent maintains a stable legal foundation. That is unpopular among judges who want to expand the authority and power of the courts.
The Supreme Court must not reinterpret the Constitution. If what might prompt the activists to vote in favor of one side or the other in a case before the Court is something that is indeed a good thing for the country, and passes the standard of constitutionalism, then it must be sanctioned by an act of Congress, not the courts.
The increase in the number of activist judges illustrates the dire need for restoring judicial conservatism to the nation's highest court. nObama is unlikely to nominate anyone other than a liberal activist. Reports say that the list of potential nominees for the Scalia seat on the Court has been reduced to five, and four of them contributed to nObama campaigns. That should tell us all we need to know about not only his choices, but how important it is that we elect a solid conservative in the 2016 election. -The Patriot Post
.
.
North Korea: Our H-bomb would
blow Manhattan to 'ashes'
ANNA GIARITELLI
.
.
nObama's Path to War
Ari Lieberman
.
.
393 to 0: U.S. House Unanimously Declares ISIL Is Committing Genocide Against Christians
Terence P. Jeffrey
.
.
‘You Throw Us a Curved Ball,’ Tell Us to ‘Share
Our World’ With Terror-Sponsor Iran
Patrick Goodenough
.
Saudi Prince Turki al-Faisal
.
{cnsnews.com} ~ A senior Saudi prince has responded sharply to reported questioning by President nObama about the kingdom’s value as an ally... and in a scathing attack derided the administration’s policies from supporting the Muslim Brotherhood government in Egypt to engaging Iran. Turki al-Faisal, who served as Saudi Arabia’s intelligence chief from 1977-2001, and as ambassador to the United States from 2005-2006, pulled few punches in an open letter in Arab News Monday, accusing nObama among other things of breaking a pledge to Riyadh to counter Iran’s destabilizing activities in the region. Turki was evidently reacting to a lengthy article by Jeffrey Goldberg in The Atlantic on “The nObama Doctrine,” which among other things highlighted nObama’s lukewarm opinion about Saudi Arabia. cnsnews.comhttp://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/patrick-goodenough/top-saudi-prince-obama-you-throw-us-curved-ball-tell-us-share-our.
nObama’s Clean Power Plan Will Destroy
Navajo Nation Jobs
Chuck DeVore.
{dailysignal.com} ~ The federal government and its allies are choosing dubious environmental prescriptions to effectively impose a new tax on electricity, increasing the costs of energy on all Americans and businesses... These added costs will especially impact middle- and low-income families and those seniors on fixed incomes. When running for office in 2008, President Barack nObama famously remarked, “Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.” His Clean Power Plan is the tool he will use to do just that. Under the president’s power plan, certain Indian territories are especially singled out. http://dailysignal.com/2016/03/14/obamas-clean-power-plan-will-destroynavajonationjobs/utm_source=heritagefoundation&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=dailydigest&mkt_tok=3RkMMJWWfF9wsRonu6%2FBe%2B%2FhmjTEU5z16uwlXaS1iokz2EFye%2BLIHETpodcMTcdlNbrYDBceEJhqyQJxPr3NLtQN191pRhLiDA%3D%3D.
slump-Trump is Wrong About Islam and Women
.
.
Islamic Arm of Intl Red Cross Honors
Terrorists Who Killed 12 Children
Tiffany Gabbay
.
.
nObama’s Unelected EPA Bureaucrats
Stole Three US Towns
S. Noble
.
Riverton, Wyoming
.
{independentsentinel.com} ~ In an act of utter lawlessness, the EPA seized the entire town of Riverton, Wyoming (pop. 10,990) and two other towns, Kinnear (pop.219) and Pavillion (pop. 236) from their combined 11,000 inhabitants and turned them over to the Wind River reservation. It started over air quality control... The EPA is doing this at the same time, they are stealing land and water rights from cowboys and ranchers who have held their deeds since the Louisiana Purchase. This shifts jurisdiction for inspections, policing, taxing and other services as well as land rights to Indian tribes. Riverton, Wyoming is now part of the Wind River Indian Reservation according to a government agency in what is an extraordinary breach of authority. It was not decided by courts, by the state or by Congress but rather by Barack nObama and his unelected, bureaucrats in the EPA in 2013. http://www.independentsentinel.com/obamas-unelected-epa-bureaucrats-stole-three-us-towns/.
The GOP Sellout Continues
Genevieve Wood
.
.
Budget Deal Kicks the Can on Disability Insurance, Robs $150 Billion From Social Security
Rachel Greszler
.
.
.
Anti-slump-Trump Conservatives Might Need to
Swallow Pride, Support Cruz
Jonah Goldberg
.
.
But the most plausible path to a slump-Trump-free, Republican-controlled White House is consolidation around Cruz. It's a difficult conclusion for many people, and some may not get there until Sen. Marco Rubio loses the primary in his home state of Florida. And some may never accept Cruz, opting to bend the knee to slump-Trump instead.
But the most plausible path to a slump-Trump-free, Republican-controlled White House is consolidation around Cruz. It's a difficult conclusion for many people, and some may not get there until Sen. Marco Rubio loses the primary in his home state of Florida. And some may never accept Cruz, opting to bend the knee to slump-Trump instead.
.
Many believe -- correctly in my opinion -- that Rubio would be the more competitive challenger to Clinton in the general election. But many also believe that the Hulk would be a great offensive lineman in the NFL. In other words, reality has a way of taking our personal preferences off the menu. If the math isn't with Rubio, hopes and wishes can't change that.
Many believe -- correctly in my opinion -- that Rubio would be the more competitive challenger to Clinton in the general election. But many also believe that the Hulk would be a great offensive lineman in the NFL. In other words, reality has a way of taking our personal preferences off the menu. If the math isn't with Rubio, hopes and wishes can't change that.
.
So that leaves Cruz.
So that leaves Cruz.
.
(What's that? What about Ohio Gov. John Kasich? Well, what about him? He's simply running to be a spoiler or a kingmaker at the convention.)
(What's that? What about Ohio Gov. John Kasich? Well, what about him? He's simply running to be a spoiler or a kingmaker at the convention.)
.
The chief objections to Cruz from conservative and Republican insiders boil down to three things. (1) They just don't like him. (2) They don't think he's electable. (3) They think he'd be just as much of a self-interested pain in the butt as president as he has been as a senator. Let's look at all three in order.
The chief objections to Cruz from conservative and Republican insiders boil down to three things. (1) They just don't like him. (2) They don't think he's electable. (3) They think he'd be just as much of a self-interested pain in the butt as president as he has been as a senator. Let's look at all three in order.
.
Cruz will tell you that members of the "Washington cartel" don't like him because he's challenged the system and is a threat to K Street and so on. But that's only part of it. His fellow senators don't like him because they don't like him. They say he's arrogant and condescending, a terrible listener and completely uninterested in actually getting anything done that doesn't further his own interests. They see him as a right-wing Arlen Specter -- a notoriously difficult and self-absorbed senator.
Cruz will tell you that members of the "Washington cartel" don't like him because he's challenged the system and is a threat to K Street and so on. But that's only part of it. His fellow senators don't like him because they don't like him. They say he's arrogant and condescending, a terrible listener and completely uninterested in actually getting anything done that doesn't further his own interests. They see him as a right-wing Arlen Specter -- a notoriously difficult and self-absorbed senator.
.
The truth is probably somewhere in between. There are people who've known Cruz for years and hate him, and there are people who've known him for years and love him. I've found him perfectly pleasant and engaging in conversation. But pretty much everyone respects his intellect. Cruz is simply one of the smartest people in Washington.
The truth is probably somewhere in between. There are people who've known Cruz for years and hate him, and there are people who've known him for years and love him. I've found him perfectly pleasant and engaging in conversation. But pretty much everyone respects his intellect. Cruz is simply one of the smartest people in Washington.
.
And to that point, it's worth noting that his theory of 2016 was correct. Cruz concentrated on making the right friends and, just as important, making the right enemies. He understood that the populist and working-class elements of the Republican coalition were ticked off at the establishment, and that capturing that anger would be the key to winning the primaries.
And to that point, it's worth noting that his theory of 2016 was correct. Cruz concentrated on making the right friends and, just as important, making the right enemies. He understood that the populist and working-class elements of the Republican coalition were ticked off at the establishment, and that capturing that anger would be the key to winning the primaries.
.
In fairness, Cruz helped to rile up those constituencies in the first place. But that's politics.
In fairness, Cruz helped to rile up those constituencies in the first place. But that's politics.
.
He missed one thing: the black swan known as Donald slump-Trump. Cruz brilliantly made his bed, and slump-Trump leapt into it when Cruz wasn't looking.
He missed one thing: the black swan known as Donald slump-Trump. Cruz brilliantly made his bed, and slump-Trump leapt into it when Cruz wasn't looking.
.
Still, Cruz has been the only candidate to effectively respond to slump-Trump and is arguably the only one many slump-Trump supporters could live with as an alternative.
Still, Cruz has been the only candidate to effectively respond to slump-Trump and is arguably the only one many slump-Trump supporters could live with as an alternative.
.
The point here is that Cruz, for all his apparent rigidity, is actually a remarkably nimble and capable politician. The assumption that he couldn't beat Clinton isn't just belied by the polls, but by the fact that Cruz has shown a mercenary's willingness to do what it takes to win and I mean that as a compliment.
The point here is that Cruz, for all his apparent rigidity, is actually a remarkably nimble and capable politician. The assumption that he couldn't beat Clinton isn't just belied by the polls, but by the fact that Cruz has shown a mercenary's willingness to do what it takes to win and I mean that as a compliment.
.
And then there's the worry about a President Cruz. This is what I worry about least.
And then there's the worry about a President Cruz. This is what I worry about least.
.
Unlike slump-Trump, Cruz is ideologically and intellectually qualified to be president and to pick Supreme Court nominees. Moreover, there are two things even Cruz haters can concede. First, it's a given that a President Cruz will want to be re-elected. Second, Cruz's "brand" hinges almost entirely on his fidelity to the Constitution. Mimicking Barack nObama's disdain for the Constitution simply wouldn't be an option for Cruz, and that means he'd have to work with Congress to get his conservative agenda passed.
Unlike slump-Trump, Cruz is ideologically and intellectually qualified to be president and to pick Supreme Court nominees. Moreover, there are two things even Cruz haters can concede. First, it's a given that a President Cruz will want to be re-elected. Second, Cruz's "brand" hinges almost entirely on his fidelity to the Constitution. Mimicking Barack nObama's disdain for the Constitution simply wouldn't be an option for Cruz, and that means he'd have to work with Congress to get his conservative agenda passed.
.
This has been a year where a lot of good and honorable people have had to swallow their pride. The trough isn't empty yet, and many more may need to belly up for seconds if they want to save the GOP.
This has been a year where a lot of good and honorable people have had to swallow their pride. The trough isn't empty yet, and many more may need to belly up for seconds if they want to save the GOP.
.
Comments